Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-03-05

great water-courses. This material develop
ment attributed to the energy of the race to
which we belong, could not have taken place
without the instrumentality of railroads These
instrumentalities. which have changed the
course of trade. cheapened food. given employ
ment to industry and created new homes for
Millions could not in the nature of things have
been operated however wise their administra-
tion, without friction
ALLEGED UNJUST DISSEMINATION.
1t has been charged that railroad corporations
have exacted payments for their services both
unreasonable and unjust; that they have given
undue and unreasonable preferences and adj
vantages to persons and localities; that they
have denied reasonable and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic that under sub
stantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions" they have charged mo re for less than
for greater distance. This is part of the
public history of the country. 1t is not material
to this argument whether these charges were
well OF i'll founded. for experience has fre-
quently shown, and in Republics especially,
that laws are as often directed against imaginary
wrongs as again.t real evils, and that it is wis
dom upon the part CT legislative bodies in Re
publics to deal with the one as well as with the
other.
As is usual in Acts of legislative assemblies,
there is much in the sections under considera-
tion which might have been omitted without
affecting their purport. The spirit of these
sections is embraced in few words; charges
must be just and reasonable. There must be no in
vidious discrimination against persons or places
and there must be no undue or unreasonable
preferences shown either as to persons places
or traffic"
Looking now to the ellknown principles of
the common law, we see that from the first the
common carrier was entitled to reasonable
compensation for his services; that he was al
ways prohibited from making unjust discrimi
nations between persons and localities, or Civ
ing undue or unreasonable preference or prefer
ences or advantages to any person or locality
or, in other words, that he was always bound,
to the extent of the capacity of his vehicles, to
receive freight or passengers for reasonable
and just compensation, and to treat all alike
whenever the conditions and circumstances
were substantially the same
PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE INTERSTATE COM
MERGE ACT
In enacting the law in question then. Con-
gress but enacted, in these sections, the pro-
visions of the law of England in relation to
common carriers and made that law applicable
to interstate and TO foreign transportation thus
establishing the rules which experience had
taught would prevent the evils, real or imag-
mary, which the bill was intended to abate.
In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred
over commerce. Congress has made rules where
none before existed, and these rules, instead of
CIV ,II ty,no
mon law itself and have received construction
and Interpretation which are well known to the
legal profession 1t is in view of such construc-
tion and Interpretation that Congress must be
deemed to have acted. AT common law, the
carrier was entitled to a reasonable and just
compensation for his services. The Act in ques
tion declares the same rule. What constitutes
reasonable and just compensation is judicial
question to be determined from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
EXERCISE OF REGULATIYE POWER.
It is saidthat the State has power to regulate
fares and freghts on railroads so far as domestic
transportation is concerned. 1t is CLAIMED that
Congress has the power, as incident to the regI-
lation of commerce among the States, to estab
lsh the rates which may be charged for trans
portation when such transportation is involved
in foreign and interstate commerce, and in an
ordinary sense this is true Indeed, the Su-
preme Court of the United States seems, in what
are known as the Granger cases. to have
gone to the extent that there was power in the
legislative department of the Government to
absolutely determine what rates should consti-
tute reasonable compensation for such services
but the Court in tho sc cases overlooked the fact
that property in a railroad, and in almost every
other thing devoted to public use, consists in
the right to use the same, and incidentally, of
course, in the right to receive reasonable COM
pensation for such use.
Under the fourteenth amendment to the Fed
eral Constitution no State can deprive any per
son of either of these rights of property, and Dy
the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the
United States the right to life liberty and prop
erty was placed beyond the governmental pow
er understand the true rule to be, in this re-
spect, that State or Federal legislation fixing the
rates which shall be charged for the use of such
property will be treated by the Courts as prima
acie establishing the fact that such rates just
and reasonable, and that the passage OF fsuchActs
throw upon the party denying the business of
the charge the burden of showing that it is un-
just. This, and nothing more. Later legislation
of this character seems to be based upon this
idea, notably so is this the fact in the Missis-
sippi Railroad Commission bill. That bill ex-
pressly provides that in all trials of cases
brought for violation of the tariff of charges as
fixed by the Commission. it may be shown in
defense that such tariff, so fixed is unjust"
LIMITATIONS OF THE REGuLArIvE POWER.
The Supreme Court of the United States, in
ltI.r
read the opinion has greatly modified the
rule laid down in the Granger cases. Said
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivering the exhaus-
tive opinion of the Court in the case From
what has thus been said it is not to be inferred
that this power of Limitation or regulation is it.
self without limit This power to regulate is
not power to destroy, and limitation is not
the equivalent of confiscation. IN
der pretense of regulating fares and
freights, the State cannot require railroad cor
porations to carry persons or property without
reward, neither can it do that which in law
amounts to the taking of private property for
] public use without just compensation or without
due process OF law.
The right to the use being the only property
that one could have in railroad, it logically
follows riat the right to reasonable, compensa-
tion for such use is protected by the clauses of
the Constitution above referred to, and that no
Legislature, State or national, can deprive any
railroad company of that right except under the
power of eminent domain, which, as exercised
by the national and by all the State govern
ments requires that compensation shall first be
made.
The right of the common carrier to a reasona-
BILE and just compensation has always been adj
mitted at common law. 1t is property right
and, like all other property rights. it is pro-
tected by the national Constitution against as
saults either by the national or State govern
menf. The Act of Congress under c0nsidera-
ton clearly and expressly recognizes this right
by the declaration in the first section of the Act
that charges for such service shall be reason
able and just. In constituting the Act this re-
cognition of the carriers right must always be